More creationist nonsense

[xenophon41]

!hoD

[Podkayne]

Yup, yup, yup. 10[sup]240[/sup]. Sorry! That’s what I get for trying to be a smartypants. : )

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
Poor Hume. He fell into a classic converse accident. He looks at a single frame in the middle of a reel of film, and draws conclusions about its plot and its outcome.

That makes no sense to me. Hume made no statements about the outcome of the universe, only about the state of the universe. “Evil” is something descibes a particular event, not the entirety of existence, and so there is nothing wrong with noting its existence solely on the basis of a small portion of time.

[jab1]

One of the silliest things some creationists believe is that the speed of light was faster back in Adam’s day. I’m talkin’ WAY faster. I’m talkin’ 10,600,000 times faster than it is now. Try plugging that into E = mc[sup]2[/sup] and see what happens. I think he’s trying to reconcile the great ages of rocks as determined by radiometric dating and the distances to the furthest quasars with Bishop Ussher’s calculation that the universe is only 6,000 years old (give or take a decade).

The trouble with that is that if the rocks aren’t as old as the dating says they are, then neither is anything else! If the speed of light was once 10,600,000 times faster than it is now, Adam’s life would have been much shorter than ours, not longer. Not to mention the fact that the Sun would have been much hotter and brighter since it would have been fusing hydrogen into helium at a much, much faster rate. I think the Earth would resemble Venus under such conditions, if not Mercury.

The laws of physics determine how fast everything ages. Change any of the universal constants and the equation (that is, the Universe) is no longer balanced. The author of this website tries to justify this belief here, but I cannot make head or tails of it.

[Liberal]

“Evil” is something descibes a particular event, not the entirety of existence, and so there is nothing wrong with noting its existence solely on the basis of a small portion of time.

I disagree. Evil is a metaphysical state.

[JDeMobray]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
**Perhaps there is a suffering beyond mere synaptic discharges. Perhaps our children cannot understand what we suffer on their behalf. Just perhaps. **

And perhaps the Alpha Centauri solar system is made of glued together milk cartons. We can only form opinions and make judgments based on things that we can and do know. (Well, that assumes our judgments are in some way based on reason, so I suppose really shouldn’t assume in your case.)

[Amedeus]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
**

“Evil” is something descibes a particular event, not the entirety of existence, and so there is nothing wrong with noting its existence solely on the basis of a small portion of time.

I disagree. Evil is a metaphysical state. **

Hmm, looking in the ol dictionary it claims two definitions;

Evil, Adj- Wicked, Causing or threatening distress or harm.

Evil, noun- The fact of suffering, misfortune, and wrongness.

Seems pretty subjective to me. Claiming it is a metaphysical state puts the objective into it and would require a different definition.

[tracer]

I thought Evil was one of the 3 possibilities for the second half of your Alignment. And that your alignment had to be evil if you wanted to play an assassin character.
– tracer, who always preferred chaotic-neutral himself. You don’t show up on the radar screen of a detect evil spell that way.

[Gaudere]

I was always Chaotic Neutral too. You can do whatever the hell you want!

[MandaJo]

So sorry, major hijack . . .

Poor Hume. He fell into a classic converse accident.

Lib, do me a favor and don’t condecend to a great philosopher, M’kay? The Problem of Evil is a thorny mess, which is why half of our philosophic heritage and a good chunk of the world’s great literature attempts to deal with it. It is certainly a valid thing to ponder, but to act as if the answer is so simple, so easy, if only those bozos had really thought about it is insulting to an aweful lot of people whom I daresay could give any of us a run for our money. When you’ve written your own Theodicy that compares with Paradise Lost or The City of God or The Consolation of Philosophy or Suma Theologica then you can get snotty. I don’t have a problem with you thinking you are as smart as Hume (or Milton or Leibniz or Boethius or any other of the hundreds of brilliant people who have tackled this one). I do think it is almost insuffrable to act as if you can see infinitly more clearly than they.

[Liberal]

JDeMobray

And perhaps the Alpha Centauri solar system is made of glued together milk cartons. We can only form opinions and make judgments based on things that we can and do know.

This you offer as the equivalent that children might not understand the nature of their parents’ suffering? How old are you?

Amadeus

Hmm, looking in the ol dictionary it claims two definitions.

Here is another, from another dictionary:

“Moral badness, or the deviation of a moral being from the principles of virtue imposed by conscience, or by the will of the Supreme Being, or by the principles of a lawful human authority; disposition to do wrong; moral offence; wickedness; depravity.” — Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

Manda JO

Lib, do me a favor and don’t [condescend] to a great philosopher, M’kay?

Greatness does not relieve a man from error.

The Problem of Evil is a thorny mess, which is why half of our philosophic heritage and a good chunk of the world’s great literature attempts to deal with it.

Oh.

So, it is worth a hijack to call me down for pointing out a logical fallacy, while the frivolous posts by Tracer and Gaudere deal maturely with the “thorny mess”?

It is certainly a valid thing to ponder, but to act as if the answer is so simple, so easy, if only those bozos had really thought about it is insulting to an [awful] lot of people [who] I [dare say] could give any of us a run for our money.

And yet the offering of a snippet from Hume as the easy solution to evil did not offend you? Methinks you amortize your offenses in a curiously selective manner.

When you’ve written your own Theodicy that compares with Paradise Lost or The City of God or The Consolation of Philosophy or Suma Theologica then you can get snotty.

Snotty is as snotty does. Is the atheist who rejects every theodicy snotty? Or is it rather the person who claims to decide which ones may favorably compare?

I don’t have a problem with [your] thinking you are as smart as Hume (or Milton or Leibniz or Boethius or any other of the hundreds of brilliant people who have tackled this one).

Oh, I submit that you do.

I do think it is almost [insufferable] to act as if you can see infinitly more clearly than they.

And which philosopher saw more clearly, Hume or Aquinas? Kant or DesCartes? Did one or the other act insufferably? May only those with famous names philosophize?

Had you been standing beside the little boy, would you have stopped the parade so you could slap him and declare, “He can’t be naked, you presumptuous imp. He is the emperor!”?

[JDeMobray]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Libertarian *
This you offer as the equivalent that children might not understand the nature of their parents’ suffering? How old are you?
So. . . we’re done talking then? Tell you what, go ahead and ignore the first sentence of my previous post, and the second half of my parenthetical comment if it makes you better.

**And which philosopher saw more clearly, Hume or Aquinas? Kant or DesCartes? Did one or the other act insufferably? May only those with famous names philosophize?

Had you been standing beside the little boy, would you have stopped the parade so you could slap him and declare, “He can’t be naked, you presumptuous imp. He is the emperor!”? **

Wheras you would’ve asked “How old are you? Get some more life-experience before you deign to question me kid.”

26, btw.

[JDeMobray]

But not, apparently, old enough to hit “Preview.” Sigh.

[xenophon41]

Lib, 'member when I told you that I snipe at you sometimes because I hate to see you make yourself look so uncool?

Disdain aint cool unless you’re responding to rudeness and hostility, neither of which was presented by Manda JO. And condescension toward someone (JDeMobray) who’s responded in a valid way, however rudely, to an assertion of yours just makes you seem shallow.

Manda JO’s comment was not an attempt to deny the relevance of your message; it was a gentle (I repeat: gentle) jostling of that high horse you appear to be riding. Perhaps Manda failed to tweak tracer and Gaudere because their frivolous posts were neither significant hijacks nor insulting to other points of view. (And by the way, to show that Hume’s statement is a converse accident fallacy, you have to show that he believes God makes special case exceptions to the prevention of evil. Otherwise the statement is, at worst, a hasty generalization.)

JDeMobray made a statement concerning God’s empathy with our limited frames of reference; you responded with your analogy of parents suffering for their children. When J pointed out that such suffering on God’s part is not apparent, you failed to address this in the obvious way, choosing instead to call him/her a foolish whelp; a choice of actions which failed to show off the class you’re capable of bringing to a debate.

[/quote]

BTW, I’ll start working on the ethics/morality/coercion thread later today. It’s taken me longer than I thought to wrap up some other obligations IRL. I look forward to your participation when I finally get it going.

[Liberal]

Xeno

Very well. I trust your judgment in these matters.

Manda JO

Please accept my appology. I should not have taken offense from your post.

JDeMobray

I apologize to you for my heavy-handed treatment of your concern.

[Liberal]

Manda JO

As I think of it, I should apologize not only for taking offense, but for responding rudely.

[aubries]

*Originally posted by Cyberhwk *

*Originally posted by aubries *
Does anyone have the “impossible” equation handy?

The only estimate that I have heard, from some old Philosophy video, is: 1 in 10,000,000,000[sup]24[/sup].

I realize I’m a little late catching this one, and not to pick nits, but this is a probability, not an impossible equation. Events with extremely low but non-zero probabilities can and do occur. If we treat this as a binomial experiment, with p = 1/10[sup]240[/sup], all I have to do is create 10[sup]241[/sup] universes and the probability that at least one of them was a Big Bang shoots up to over 99%.

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
I disagree. Evil is a metaphysical state.

Perhaps you use the word “evil” to refer to a metaphysical state, but it seems obvious to me the Hume was not doing so. It seems to me that you are attempting to refute Hume’s argument by simply redefining terms.

[dropzone]

Even though this thread is TOTALLY HIJACKED, may I ask some stupid questions to try to get it back on track? We need common assumptions to debate this meaningfully, so:

1. What is the current, scientifically accepted, age of the universe?

2. What is the current, scientifically accepted, size of the universe?

3. What is the current, scientifically accepted, rate of expansion of the universe?

4. Has this rate changed over the billenia? Faster or slower?

5. Can these all be reconciled scientifically?

I ask because, in high school, when we had a younger, but smaller universe, simple arithmetic* told me that there would have needed to be a point when the universe was expanding faster than the speed of light to get to the size it was at.

• • Yes, I know how “simple arithmetic” can do me wrong.